Subject: [Sip] Possible flaw in SIP Change process RFC 3427

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:12:56 -0600

RCP 3427 / BCP 67, "Change Process for the Session Initiation  
Protocol", spells out the level of review necessary for SIP  
extensions, event packages, and lots of other stuff.

But it talks only minimally, if at all about "usage conventions" and  
"mappings".

As I've just learned following my review of draft-jennings-sip- 
voicemail-uri-04 for the RFC editor (we had thought this document  
innocuous enough to publish as Individual Informational), there's a  
hole 'nother category of "gotchas" that RFC 3427 doesn't cover.

It seems that anytime we do a mapping between an IETF protocol and  
some "foreign" protocol, even in something that's just a "usage  
convention", we have to be very careful. This is something that's  
hard to do correctly, and potentially politically charged due to  
relations between IETF and the standards bodies responsible for the  
"foreign" protocol.

Should we document this as an errata for RFC 3427, or what?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Dale R. Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:15:45 -0500

> Should we document this as an errata for RFC 3427, or what?

If we have evidence that unpleasant mistakes have been made in this
area, it's worth flagging as a potential trouble area.  But I assume
that you also have some idea of advice or even rules (of thumb) as to
how this problem can be resolved, which is what would be a valuable
addition to 3427.

Dale

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:46:46 -0600

> how this problem can be resolved, which is what would be a valuable

I just made a mistake with the voicemail URI draft. I try to learn  
from my mistakes occasionally.

The rule of thumb I would suggest is probably "Any SIP-related RFC  
that specifies a mapping between an IETF protocol and an external  
protocol MUST be broadly reviewed, at least to the level of IETF  
Consensus as defined in RFC 2434 and preferably to the level of a  
standards-track RFC."

--
Dean